[normhead]

And I would agree. Though what's outstanding here is that while a consensus will be made-up of opposing views, it remains that it is the segments making up the consensus are will drive the majority vote; think trends,

You do know voting and consensus ar entirely different processes don't you?

[JohnBee]

You do know voting and consensus ar entirely different processes don't you?

I had no idea how confusing this sounded until I read it back, and so I've edited the initial statement in hopes of making it seem more rational. However, and if this helps, I'd add that I wasn't intending to confound the voters(as it were) with the main consensus, as these served as references to identify consumer approval. And so, I think the confusion in this particular case, stemmed from the lack of resolution(group identification) within the consumer model:
ie, Consumer Demographic(users) -> Consensus(votes) -> Conclusions(trends, approval rates etc)

With that said, I think the main reason why this may appear contradictory at first glance, is where consumers(as in the main demographic) are not specific to one particular mindset as a whole. Which results in a demographic that may or may not be in agreement with a particular product or feature. Whereas they will all be subject to being a part of a demographic for some reason or another.

ie, 6.2 million out of 8 million iphone users agree that iphones are the best phones. Or in this case, XX users agree that EVF's are either equal or better than OVF's.

With that said, and with regard to segmentation(indifference within the userbase), I'd also add that there will most always be a minority and majority vote demographic to contend with in cases where product successions are concerned. And more specifically, where it is from such subsets that a popular vote(instead of general consensus) can be observed. ie, 1% or the consumers do not agree that product X meets or exceeds the goal type reasoning.

And so my remaining question was to ask what demographics would we conclude to be sufficient to justify the claim that EVF's either met or exceeded OVF's from a general consensus standpoint?
That is to say, in that most users - winch would include though not limited to, exceptions and minorities; 5:1, 10:1, 100:1 etc etc.

[Kunzite]

The question is really whether EVF technology becomes so much cheaper for camera companies to make and install that models with EVFs are significantly cheaper than those with prisms. I think most people would be willing to deal with an EVF if it meant getting the same camera for 75 dollars cheaper.

I'd say the MILCs win this one, as no viewfinder is cheaper than any kind of viewfinder. People are too used with their smartphones and with coping with those screens in strong daylight.
If they realize a viewfinder is a better option, they would buy from the same brand.

---------- Post added 26-05-17 at 09:51 AM ----------

While I can't speak for popularity contests, I think a given technology would need to meet specific goals so as to thrive. Otherwise I doubt it would survive. And so while one wouldn't likely conclude that EVF's have met the goal by popular vote(so-to speak) it remains that it could only live up-to it's claims as doing so, by majority. - which seems a little odd to point out at this stage, given the logical process attributed to technological succession (for example) - unless I'm completely misinterpreting your points.

"To thrive", "specific goals" ... it's all to vague.
"By majority"? That's wrong, very wrong - you folks are taking this as a fight to the death, a total war after which there can be only one. The thing is, EVFs are already successful; not in obliterating the enemy, but as a product on the market.
It doesn't even have to "meet or exceed" OVFs. The two can continue to coexist.

[JohnBee]

"To thrive", "specific goals" ... it's all to vague.

Thrive; as in succeeding in the marketplace
Goals; meeting the requirements to achieve sustainability

"By majority"? That's wrong, very wrong - you folks are taking this as a fight to the death, a total war after which there can be only one. The thing is, EVFs are already successful; not in obliterating the enemy, but as a product on the market.

These would be a strawman arguments as these are your own admitted terms.

It doesn't even have to "meet or exceed" OVFs. The two can continue to coexist.

I would agree. Though I doubt this would be the case if OVF's cater to a minority, as this would likely imply manufacturing changes or exceptions. ie, it's unlikely that camera manufacturers would compromise on primary features(focus peaking etc) to cater to a small percentage of users.

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 05-26-2017 at 03:41 AM.

[Kunzite]

Too vague. Useless words. Say something, or don't.

If it's a strawman, it's yours. The "EVF=majority" is your idea, one you're desperate about - and what you're pushing for in this Pentax DSLR forum. This very thread (despite few people being affected by selective blindness) is about DSLRs being doomed.

I don't think how you can agree with OVFs and EVFs coexisting, yet pushing for EVF supposed superiority on a DSLR forum. It's obvious from your claims that you're unhappy with DSLRs being more than a negligible niche.
At least it's not total annihilation.

[Rondec]

I think this is more like when Apple decided to leave a head phone jack off of their most recent phone. Did the users actually clamor for it? If anything they were upset by it, but they liked other aspects of the new phones enough to buy them. And if other cell phone companies see that Apple can get away with that and maybe make money on the side on blue tooth head phones, then they will probably follow.

This is not consumer choice, it is companies doing what they want and consumers having to deal.

Most companies do what is best for their own bottom line, end of story. The idea that most people are clamoring for either OVF or EVF viewfinders is a fallacy. Most people probably like what they are used to using, which for the most part is the live view screen on the back of the camera.

[JohnBee]

If it's a strawman, it's yours...

"...fight to the death, total war, obliterating the enemy, total annihilation"
These are your terms, and are nowhere to be found in any of the discussions to date. And so it wouldn't make much sense to try and defend such statements at this stage.

It's obvious from your claims that you're unhappy with DSLRs being more than a negligible niche.

I tend to try and avoid looking at matters in black and white terms personally. ie, I have enjoyed all of the camera's that I've owned over the years(new and old). Though I also look forward to what the future will bring in terms of technological advancements. And so I think this is more a matter of personal perspective than anything else at this stage.

---------- Post added 05-26-17 at 08:06 AM ----------

I think this is more like when Apple decided to leave a head phone jack off of their most recent phone. Did the users actually clamor for it? If anything they were upset by it, but they liked other aspects of the new phones enough to buy them. And if other cell phone companies see that Apple can get away with that and maybe make money on the side on blue tooth head phones, then they will probably follow.

I think the Apple headphone jack scenario is an excellent illustration. ie, it would appear that many of the larger companies make use of live consumer trials to determine whether a particular change or feature is worth pursuing. To which I'd add, Samsung has made extensive use of in recent years, after removing features only to re-introduce them when sales took a hit.

Though I have to say that I haven't seen these types of behaviors with the introduction of EVF in mirrorless camera's however. As it would appear as though the technology is intended to be complimentary to mirrorless systems.

This is not consumer choice, it is companies doing what they want and
consumers having to deal.

From what I can see, these types of behaviors seem self regulating in that the consumer responses will either provide a sustainable market for the technology or not. Though this does not appear to be the case with EVF's, as the latest iterations in that most every reviewer appears to be applauding the technology.

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 05-26-2017 at 03:45 AM.

[Kunzite]

That is a rhetorical device, and not an exact quote of your words. Indeed, the impression you folks are giving is that of a total war against OVFs; why so, well, you're on a Pentax DSLR forum talking about how DSLRs will disappear or become niche, and how EVFs are as good or better ("meet or exceed").
Of course you won't admit waging a virtual war on OVFs.

Being unable to accept OVFs and EVFs truly coexisting on the market (not with OVFs pushed asides in a small niche), and taking steps to "fix" the situation is seeing in black and white.

The Apple scenario says a different story than you did. There, an inferior (as in, not "meeting or exceeding" the alternative) solution was pushed to the customers.
Are you saying the EVFs are an inferior solution? No, you're saying the opposite.

[Rondec]

That is a rhetorical device, and not an exact quote of your words. Indeed, the impression you folks are giving is that of a total war against OVFs; why so, well, you're on a Pentax DSLR forum talking about how DSLRs will disappear or become niche, and how EVFs are as good or better ("meet or exceed").
Of course you won't admit waging a virtual war on OVFs.

Being unable to accept OVFs and EVFs truly coexisting on the market (not with OVFs pushed asides in a small niche), and taking steps to "fix" the situation is seeing in black and white.

The Apple scenario says a different story than you did. There, an inferior (as in, not "meeting or exceeding" the alternative) solution was pushed to the customers.
Are you saying the EVFs are an inferior solution? No, you're saying the opposite.

I don't know if EVFs will always be inferior, but they feel inferior now. At the same time, they are a necessity of mirrorless design.

I just know for my style of shooting, all of the "helps" of an EVF are unwanted clutter and the actual user experience isn't as good as the experience with an OVF.

[Kunzite]

I won't give up to a technology which works for me for one that doesn't, but might become suitable in 5-10-whatever years. Everything I've heard here in support of EVFs is useless noise, because it doesn't address my problem.

[photoptimist]

I don't know if EVFs will always be inferior, but they feel inferior now. At the same time, they are a necessity of mirrorless design.

I just know for my style of shooting, all of the "helps" of an EVF are unwanted clutter and the actual user experience isn't as good as the experience with an OVF.

Exactly!

EVFs will always be inferior on lag because the EVF has to wait for the processor to compute the displayed image and the processor has to wait for the sensor to read an image and the sensor has to wait for enough photons to have an image. Advancements in technology can reduce lag in processing and read-out (albeit at a high cost on other dimensions) but they can't reduce the exposure time needed to get a decent image especially if EVFs go to higher resolution.

EVFs will always make the camera inferior on image DR because they force the camera to run the sensor continuously which makes the sensor hotter and noisier.

EVFs will always make the camera inferior on battery life(or battery size) because they force the camera to run the sensor, CPU, and lighted EVF panel continuously.

Whether EVFs become "good enough" for most buyers on lag, DR, and battery isn't clear yet. (Although if we're looking at an overall consumer popularity contest, then both EVFs and OVFs have clearly lost to the no-VF design of smartphones and many low-end standalone cameras.)

But the more important question for "future of DSLRs" is whether a sufficient number of customers will pay a sufficient price for OVF cameras. That seems quite likely given: 1) the relatively low cost of the SLR design (as a fraction of prevailing camera prices), 2) the high percentage of people strongly intolerant of EVFs, and 3) the high willingness of pro, enthusiast, and luxury-brand photographers to spend money to get what they want.

[Kunzite]

So... I went and (briefly) compared the A7 II and A7r II. I'm afraid there's no significant difference between the two; slightly larger if I'm not mistaken, but still very digital, pixelated and wrong.

The A9 wasn't available yet, so I was recommended the Fuji GFX. Yep... better. And nope, not better enough - or rather, the aspects that makes EVF not an option for me are still there. Fuji doesn't like eyeglass wearers, by the way.
As a side note, I was pleasantly surprised by its AF speed - given that it's an older sensor without PDAF. It also has working face detection, but I didn't think to test if it would focus on the eye.
It doesn't sit that well in hand, and you won't save any weight/size on lenses.

[normhead]

So... I went and (briefly) compared the A7 II and A7r II. I'm afraid there's no significant difference between the two; slightly larger if I'm not mistaken, but still very digital, pixelated and wrong.

The A9 wasn't available yet, so I was recommended the Fuji GFX. Yep... better. And nope, not better enough - or rather, the aspects that makes EVF not an option for me are still there. Fuji doesn't like eyeglass wearers, by the way.
As a side note, I was pleasantly surprised by its AF speed - given that it's an older sensor without PDAF. It also has working face detection, but I didn't think to test if it would focus on the eye.
It doesn't sit that well in hand, and you won't save any weight/size on lenses.

Wow, you really got inspired.

[JohnBee]

So... I went and (briefly) compared the A7 II and A7r II. I'm afraid there's no significant difference between the two; slightly larger if I'm not mistaken, but still very digital, pixelated and wrong.

The A9 wasn't available yet, so I was recommended the Fuji GFX. Yep... better. And nope, not better enough - or rather, the aspects that makes EVF not an option for me are still there. Fuji doesn't like eyeglass wearers, by the way.
As a side note, I was pleasantly surprised by its AF speed - given that it's an older sensor without PDAF. It also has working face detection, but I didn't think to test if it would focus on the eye.
It doesn't sit that well in hand, and you won't save any weight/size on lenses.

Congratulations on taking the initiative. Too bad the a9 wasn't available.

[Kunzite]

I always had the initiative.
The A9 won't change anything; it still has an EVF based on the same technology. As someone observed earlier, it will make EVF fans happier - but it won't do anything if EVFs don't work for you.
And then, another camera will appear and you'll say, "you should try this one before speaking! I'm expecting a huge improvement!"